HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 12:36 PM
tdawg's Avatar
tdawg tdawg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NY,NY
Posts: 2,354
Smart move by Chase to stay at this location. Hudson Yards can only get so big serviced only by the 7 train. With One Vandy coming and now the new Chase tower, the momentum will shift slightly east.
__________________
Creative Director in New York City
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 12:54 PM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,062
So the extra million sf is from buying air rights and not from the new zoning?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 3:02 PM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
So the extra million sf is from buying air rights and not from the new zoning?
Both. JPM is buying unused, but newly created air rights which were created as a result of the new zoning.

And it looks like the floodgates are starting to open. St. Patricks Cathedral is preparing to present it's plan to sell 1M sf of air rights, once that sale is completed, I would imagine we'll have a new supertall proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 3:46 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 5,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Bear Stearns doesn’t exist anymore. It’s JPMorgan and has been for a decade.
I think of it as the Bear Stearns Building, I didn't realize others didn't.
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener. <><><><><><>IMPEACHMENT NOW!

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 5:18 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSsocal View Post
I'm getting weary of people saying this building isn't functioning, or it's obsolete. That isn't the issue. This is a LEED platinum building, renovated in 2012. It's more functional then just about any pre-war office building- and yet we love all of those.

No the issue is Chase needs much more space then they have and as a bank Chase wants larger trading floors. This building would be perfectly suitable for numerous other tenants as 277 Park across the street demonstrates. But chase, in lieu of moving to another site, will be using land they've already got (makes sense). Jamie Dimon also seems to want a new shiny trophy headquarters (Not unreasonable).

I'll just put you in the crowd that doesn't understand the purpose of the district, and I grow weary of trying ti explain it. Yes, Manhattan island is covered with "functioning" buildings. The old tenements were "functioning", but desirable? No. Chase doesn't have to be in east Midtown, but the city made it possible to stay, in the process keeping it's number one business district viable for the companies at the top who need and look for the best there is to offer in terms of modern office space, with all of the amenities that entails.

And we aren't even going to discuss this part:

Quote:
JPMorgan Chase’s new building will have enough room for about 15,000 employees, compared to the old building’s capacity of just 3,500 employees.
https://www.6sqft.com/new-70-story-j...east-rezoning/
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 6:56 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 16,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prezrezc View Post
Okay....

Then go sic the demo team on 277 and 245, too. I mean it.
That may happen, but far less likely, because those buildings are already much bigger, with far more efficient floorplates, than 270 Park. They're like twice the size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prezrezc View Post
I'm hoping fervently that the Times isn't reporting this as a fait accompli.
I would say you're wasting your time. The only way this doesn't happen is for reasons unrelated to the existing building (i.e. Trump sinks the economy, zombie invasion, etc.). Landmarks already reviewed every building in the Grand Central neighborhood, and this property was deemed of little merit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 7:01 PM
JSsocal JSsocal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
I'll just put you in the crowd that doesn't understand the purpose of the district, and I grow weary of trying ti explain it. Yes, Manhattan island is covered with "functioning" buildings. The old tenements were "functioning", but desirable? No. Chase doesn't have to be in east Midtown, but the city made it possible to stay, in the process keeping it's number one business district viable for the companies at the top who need and look for the best there is to offer in terms of modern office space, with all of the amenities that entails.

And we aren't even going to discuss this part:


https://www.6sqft.com/new-70-story-j...east-rezoning/
You don't need to cherry pick what I wrote- In the next paragraph I write that I agree the new building should not be halted for this. A new 2.5m sf tower is a boon to east midtown. No arguments here.

All I am lamenting is that 270 Park is aesthetically striking, very large, and still quite a functioning office building that many smaller tenants would happily occupy.

And my whole point was that this was an issue of size (Chase needs lots of space and this happens to be the property they own) and not that the building was obsolete. Let's not compare this to this to tenements, this building is plenty desirable.

Here's something key: if this property was owned by a developer and not by a bank that's building it's own headquarters then this building would not happen.

In my opinion the worst offenders in midtown, the ones I would agree with you are 'functioning but undesirable' right now are the early postwar wedding cake buildings that are small, forgettable, and unpleasant to be in. I'm hoping that those will be the buildings that are quashed because to me those are the ones holding back the district.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 7:03 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 16,289
This was nearly 15 years ago, but I used to date an analyst at Chase (JP Morgan was downtown at that point), and visited this building at least once a week for a year or so.

I remember it as a fairly nice Mad Men-era-looking international style tower. The floorplates were pretty small compared to the other bank HQ and it didn't quite have the amenities of the newer buildings. Credit Suisse, DLJ, Bear Stearns, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs all had much nicer HQ back then. Very central location, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 7:53 PM
Prezrezc Prezrezc is offline
A.F.K.A. JayPro
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: South Huntington, Long Island, New York
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSsocal View Post
In my opinion the worst offenders in midtown, the ones I would agree with you are 'functioning but undesirable' right now are the early postwar wedding cake buildings that are small, forgettable, and unpleasant to be in. I'm hoping that those will be the buildings that are quashed because to me those are the ones holding back the district.

Thank You!!!!!!!
:

How many dozens of 425 Parkesque makeovers can be done from all that?

In the vast forest of Midtown skyscrapers and supertalls, these are the hemlock patches.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 8:57 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 5,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
The only way this doesn't happen is for reasons unrelated to the existing building (i.e. Trump sinks the economy, zombie invasion, etc.).
You forgot nuclear war as distraction tactic.
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener. <><><><><><>IMPEACHMENT NOW!

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 9:44 AM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,062
I just hope they learn from the design mistakes of the mid-century era and NOT repeat the elevated, set back from the street plazas and street frontage that is so common in that part of town.

Park Ave is so boring, sterile and dead outside of office hours because of this and other reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 5:58 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSsocal View Post
You don't need to cherry pick what I wrote- In the next paragraph I write that I agree the new building should not be halted for this. A new 2.5m sf tower is a boon to east midtown. No arguments here.
I'll respond to what I wish, thank you. Don't want a response, say nothing.


Quote:
All I am lamenting is that 270 Park is aesthetically striking, very large, and still quite a functioning office building that many smaller tenants would happily occupy.
Yes. And many smaller tenants would happily occupy a host of other buildings across Manhattan.


Quote:
And my whole point was that this was an issue of size (Chase needs lots of space and this happens to be the property they own) and not that the building was obsolete. Let's not compare this to this to tenements, this building is plenty desirable.
The building is obsolete, maybe not in some other markets, but in New York, it in no way compares with what today's market has to offer.


Quote:
Here's something key: if this property was owned by a developer and not by a bank that's building it's own headquarters then this building would not happen.
I don't see how you jump to that conclusion. Midtown east was rezoned with the specific purpose of creating new office space, but the fact is, there are very few sites where this can happen, even when buying up multiple properties. They are able to build on this site - taking a 1.5 msf property to 2.5 msf specifically because of the rezong and the size of this lot.

Quote:
In my opinion the worst offenders in midtown, the ones I would agree with you are 'functioning but undesirable' right now are the early postwar wedding cake buildings that are small, forgettable, and unpleasant to be in. I'm hoping that those will be the buildings that are quashed because to me those are the ones holding back the district.
And some of those may go, but they won't yield the enormous office towers like you see being developed on the west side. Even One Vanderbilt, for all its height and the number of buildings that had to come down for it, doesn't offet a footprint as large as the wesr side towers. That's why you will see a series of smaller leases there rather than leasrs in the half to 1 msf range. But the City wants east midtown to remain a viable option for the big tenants, and here's one taking care of itself, an easy win for the mayor and governor.


************************



Now, for the landmarking crowd, those of you who wait until something is proposed to want to jump into action. You are no different than the people who suddenly want a rezoning for their neighborhood whenever something new is planned. Where were you all when this plan went through public review, and buildings that weren't already landmarks were being considered? Where wad the outrage? If you didn't offer it then, please, spare us now. Better to put your energy into actual buildings that don't have protection and need it before something else comes along.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 7:08 PM
Prezrezc Prezrezc is offline
A.F.K.A. JayPro
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: South Huntington, Long Island, New York
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Some of those may (<Emphasis from original post) go, but they won't yield the enormous office towers like you see being developed on the west side.
If/when there's a chance to transform the space some of these architectural troglodytes to something taller at least, I won't mind.

Aren't we seriously coming to a point at which office space...or that of any kind...is at such a premium that we could be seeing more in the way of "425 Parkotomies"?

There's just so many landmarked structures now that I imagine this to be a possibility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 7:32 PM
WhatTheHeck5205 WhatTheHeck5205 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Who knows
Posts: 91
NYguy, I just want to say that your posts are always extremely well-written and make some valid points, but given the fact that there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of other midcentury towers in Midtown East which are of far worse architectural quality and quality of office space, particularly in the immediate vicinity of this tower along the western side of Park Avenue, there is absolutely no way to justify the demolition of this building. Chase owns the land? How hard would it be for them to work out a deal with Colgate-Palmolive to swap out 270 with their white whale of a headquarters at 300 Park? If not, Chase has more than enough money to purchase one of the numerous other sites in the vicinity. Hell, if the city’s so involved in this process, there’s no reason at all that they couldn’t help work out some kind of deal with the owner of a truly outdated building somewhere else in Midtown East—even using eminent domain if it’s that important to keep Chase in the neighborhood. The building doesn’t function for Chase anymore? They’re ONE occupant out of millions of businesses in this city. See, for example, Colgate-Palmolive. I doubt that a toothpaste company is gonna require 20ft ceilings anytime soon—otherwise they would have demo’d their own building already. Every other amenity you’ve argued this building lacks has in fact been added by Chase over the years, or could be created without altering the exterior of the building. Hell, how many smaller businesses would kill for a Park Avenue address? Why couldn’t all or part of the building be renovated as some kind of innovation hub for multiple small tenants? It could be a tremendous boon to job creation in the city without sacrificing the architectural fidelity of this building. Just because it’s not right for single-tenant occupancy by a very specific group of large financial companies doesn’t mean it’s not viable for the businesses that make up the other 95% of the American economy. FWIW, I’d just like to add that 425 Park, as of yesterday, is still only something like 30% leased if I recall correctly. Make of that what you will.

In short, THERE IS NO REASON TO TEAR THIS BUILDING DOWN. The impact of its preservation on the survival of Midtown East as a business district will be negligible. Those of you who have argued in favor of it have proven once again that while SSP may be a skyscraper forum, it is definitely not an architecture forum.

Side note—if others who are in favor of landmarking this building have not done so already, I would suggest reaching out to feminist organizations and making them aware of Natalie de Blois’s role as one of the primary designers of 270. As far as I am aware, this was the first skyscraper to be designed primarily by a woman and this fact should be presented along with any appeal to the LPC. It may cause them to reconsider their earlier decision on 270’s historical significance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 9:05 PM
Sky88's Avatar
Sky88 Sky88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 121
270 belongs to JPMorgan Chase and the bank can decide to do what it wants. But it would be interesting to understand which towers, in the area, could be demolished in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 9:33 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 23,020
^^^^^

I'll tell ya which tower has the most potential out of any site in the city. Its 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, which is the tower connected to MSG. If there was ever a site for a mega tall, that would be it. There have been renovation plans floated around for that tower, but I'd like to see it demo'd in the future, in place of a city defining tower. BIG had a plan for the tower, but still, lipstick on a pig.

Hopefully down the line Vornado will aim for a new tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 9:35 PM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,148
A woman designed an underutilized, 70 year old box, and that’s the reason it must be saved?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2018, 12:40 AM
WhatTheHeck5205 WhatTheHeck5205 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Who knows
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
A woman designed an underutilized, 70 year old box, and that’s the reason it must be saved?
No, but it’s a convenient excuse, isn’t it?

On a serious note, I and several others have already explained in detail why this building can and should be preserved over the countless midrise econo-wedding-cakes the Midtown East rezoning was actually meant to replace, without significantly impacting the neighborhood’s viability as a world-class business district. If some of you are too caught up in your height-above-all-else mentality to even consider those arguments, however, then we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by WhatTheHeck5205; Feb 25, 2018 at 1:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2018, 2:24 AM
Fvn Fvn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
^^^^^

I'll tell ya which tower has the most potential out of any site in the city. Its 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, which is the tower connected to MSG. If there was ever a site for a mega tall, that would be it. There have been renovation plans floated around for that tower, but I'd like to see it demo'd in the future, in place of a city defining tower. BIG had a plan for the tower, but still, lipstick on a pig.

Hopefully down the line Vornado will aim for a new tower.
IIRC SHoP proposed a redesign/redevelopment of that block a few years back?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2018, 3:48 AM
Amanita's Avatar
Amanita Amanita is offline
Crane Goddess
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,012
I think that the plan is to reclad 2 Penn, giving it a drastic makeover, give One Penn a more modest facelift (I don't think they're planning to change its looks too much, just spiff it up some), and eventually connect the two buildings into one big complex.

Somebody in the comments section of an article I read suggested that Chase offer the owners of 277 Park Avenue a trade- I don't think 277 would be up for it, as that building is still owned by the family who built it (Stahl), and judging by how beautifully maintained it is, I think they're quite proud of it and intend to keep it around. (Personally, I also like 277, it makes a nice counterpart to 270, they look like a pinstriped couple facing each other across the avenue)

But I like the idea somebody else here offered, a variation on that building swap idea. Chase could make a trade with the owners of one of those early post war wedding cake buildings that others have mentioned, and build their new tower there instead. Somebody gets the keys to beautiful and recently refitted LEED Platinum skyscraper, Chase gets a new piece of property occupied by a smaller building which would probably cost a lot less to take down, 270 gets a new lease on life, and we get a new supertall to gush over, everybody wins. I'd be all for it.
__________________
"Build me to the heavens, and Life never stops"
"Live as if the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be"
-Angel
"Prayers are fleeting and wars are forgotten, but what is built endures"
-Ambassador DeLenn, Babylon 5
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:41 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.